Article

Journal of International Marketing

2019, Vol. 27(2) 22-37
The Balancing of Country-Based ª American Marketing Association 2019
Article reuse guidelines:

Interaction Orientation and Marketing sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1069031X18819757
journals.sagepub.com/home/jig
Strategy Implementation Adaptation/
Standardization for Profit Growth
in Multinational Corporations

Hannah Soobin Lee and David A. Griffith

Abstract
For business success and continued growth, multinational corporations (MNCs) must work to efficiently leverage interactions
with customers dispersed across geographic boundaries. Under the framework of the attention-based view, this study examines
the MNC strategic approach of country-based interaction orientation and marketing strategy implementation adaptation/stan-
dardization as drivers of global profit growth, contingent on the environmental conditions of competitive intensity and market
dynamism. The findings from a survey of U.S.-based MNCs indicate that managerial attention focused on country-based inter-
action orientation and marketing strategy implementation standardization, when considered jointly, have a positive effect on
MNC profit growth. The findings also show that the effect of a country-based interaction orientation on MNC profit growth is not
as susceptible to competitive intensity and market dynamism when MNCs standardize their marketing strategy implementation,
but it varies when MNCs take a more adapted approach to their implementation strategies across country markets. These
findings bring to light important implications for international marketing theory and practice.

Keywords
country-based interaction orientation, international marketing strategy adaptation, standardization, profit growth, multinational
corporations

For multinational corporations (MNCs) to achieve business
success and growth in their global markets, they must effec-
tively harness the strategic process of interacting with their
customers (Gupta, Pansari, and Kumar 2018). A customer-
centric marketing strategy of interaction orientation—that is,
a “firm’s ability to interact with its individual customers and to
take advantage of information obtained from them through
successive interactions to achieve profitable customer
relationships” (Ramani and Kumar 2008, p. 27)—can help the
firm effectively enhance marketing capabilities and resultant
performance by proactively managing customer segments.
However, research suggests that the performance advantages
of an orientation focused on the customer or market are not
always achievable (Kumar et al. 2011; Narver, Jacobson, and
Slater 1999). Such strategic orientations come with complex-
ities and costs, rendering the returns too small to justify imple-
mentation. Furthermore, as the operational scope of interaction
orientation moves beyond national boundaries (Ramaseshan
et al. 2006), the problems and challenges of engagement and
coordination are further compounded (Kumar, Sunder, and
Ramaseshan 2011).
Assessing the “growth” value (Katsikeas et al. 2016; Mor-
gan, Slotegraaf, and Vorhies 2009) of interacting with custom-
ers is important for MNCs operating in multiple country
markets. Growth is essential for MNCs’ expansion and survival
and, as such, is part of their performance assessments of inter-
national marketing strategies (e.g., Chen, Sousa, and He 2016;
Nemkova et al. 2015; Shoham 1998). Morgan, Slotegraaf, and
Vorhies (2009) also note that profit growth is a priority for
marketing managers given that it is one of the primary drivers
of a firm’s stock price. While an interaction orientation drives a
firm’s strategic approach to engaging and managing customers
Hannah Soobin Lee is Assistant Professor, Department of Marketing, Farmer
School of Business, Miami University, USA (email: leehs@miamioh.edu). David
A. Griffith is Department Head, Hallie Vanderhider Chair in Business, and
Professor of Marketing, Department of Marketing, Mays Business School,
Texas A&M University, USA (email: dgriffith@mays.tamu.edu).
Lee and Griffith
in their markets, unlike in the domestic market, MNCs must
also consider the implementation of this approach across all
markets (Katsikeas, Samiee, and Theodosiou 2006). Extending
this extant literature, we define “country-based interaction
orientation” as a firm’s ability to manage interactive relation-
ships with its international customers at the country level.
Country-based interaction orientation sets the approach a
firm uses to engage customers globally at the country market
level (similar to the country-based market knowledge acquisi-
tion achieved through subsidiary marketing operations [Hewett
and Bearden 2001]). For example, many companies, such as
KAYAK, employ country-level managers who are charged
with the responsibility of understanding the needs of a specific
country market and coordinating localization efforts to opti-
mize the firm’s market presence. However, to understand the
organizational performance value of its customer engagement
strategy, the firm must jointly consider the impact of country-
based interaction orientation and its marketing implementation
strategy, as tension stemming from a prima facie incompatibil-
ity may be inherent between the MNC’s desire to engage cus-
tomers (i.e., to understand and respond to consumers’ needs
and wants) and its ability to gain economies through standar-
dization (i.e., execution of its marketing strategy consistently
across all markets).
International marketing strategy researchers have tradition-
ally discussed marketing strategy implementation in relation to
the adaptation or standardization of the firm’s marketing mix
(e.g., Cavusgil, Deligonul, and Yaprak 2005; Jain 1989; Ryans,
Griffith, and White 2003; Tan and Sousa 2013; Westjohn and
Magnusson 2017; Zou and Cavusgil 2002). Some scholars
argue that through greater adaptation, whether of all aspects
or just discretionary aspects of the firm’s marketing mix (i.e.,
Westjohn and Magnusson 2017), the firm can more effectively
deliver customer value to disparate customers across markets.
Alternatively, Katsikeas, Samiee, and Theodosiou (2006) and
Zou and Cavusgil (2002) argue that MNCs tend to prefer stan-
dardizing as much of their marketing mix as possible across
global operations to reap increased financial performance,
inclusive of greater profit, than competitors. The range of
implementation approaches in practice is notable. For example,
Apple works to deliver highly personalized experiences
anchored in a unique point of difference that resonates univer-
sally (Hovivian 2016) while in contrast, Hilton Hotels &
Resorts delivers highly tailored and adapted experiences to
their customers across the globe (Hernandez, Conway, and
Knight 2018). However, it is unclear whether an MNC’s degree
of adaptation or standardization of its international marketing
strategy implementation functions synergistically with its abil-
ity to effectively reap the profit returns of its strategic approach
of country-based interaction orientation.
The profit growth implications of the joint effect of the
strategic approach and marketing strategy implementation are
further complicated by the competitive and market conditions
in which the MNC operates. Two of the most prominent envi-
ronmental conditions affecting the effectiveness of interna-
tional marketing strategies are competitive intensity and
23
market dynamism (Griffith et al. 2017; Obadia 2013; Shi and
Gao 2016; Spyropoulou et al. 2018). Scholars have found these
factors to either facilitate or hinder the effects of a firm’s mar-
keting strategy on performance. With that said, the literature is
unclear on whether these conditions elevate or mitigate the
customer-centric strategic approach of country-based interac-
tion orientation combined with marketing strategy implemen-
tation adaptation or standardization in the MNC’s quest for
profit growth.
The current work attempts to address these important but
unexplored issues, filling a gap in the literature and making two
contributions. First, building on the attention-based view
(ABV), which recognizes that firm growth can vary depending
on the focus, as well as the limits, of managerial attention
(Joseph and Wilson 2018), we advance the literature on
customer-centric marketing strategies (e.g., Chen, Chen, and
Zhou 2014; Chen, Sousa, and He 2016) by investigating the
joint effects of country-based interaction orientation and the
degree of marketing strategy implementation adaptation/stan-
dardization (which we conceptualize as the extent to which the
MNC adapts or standardizes its overall marketing mix) on
profit growth. For expositional purposes, we refer to the firm’s
degree of marketing strategy implementation adaptation/stan-
dardization only as marketing strategy implementation standar-
dization from this point on. Our findings, which extend both the
international marketing strategy literature (e.g., Westjohn and
Magnusson 2017; Zou and Cavusgil 2002) and the ABV focus
on international marketing strategic orientations (e.g., Chen,
Chen, and Zhou 2014), reveal a positive interaction effect of
country-based interaction orientation and the firm’s degree of
marketing strategy implementation standardization on profit
growth. This finding is contrary to what may be regarded as
tension between country-based interaction orientation and mar-
keting strategy standardization (the apparent conflicting goals
of meeting individual market needs while working to gain
economies across markets). Notably, we find that the profit
growth effect of a country-based interaction orientation is neg-
ative when MNCs employ less of a marketing strategy imple-
mentation standardization approach across markets. This
suggests that the increased costs associated with high customer
engagement strategies (i.e., country-based interaction orienta-
tion and marketing strategy implementation adaptation) ham-
per profit growth.
Second, we extend the literature by examining the contin-
gent effects of competitive intensity and market dynamism.
The findings indicate that the effect of country-based interac-
tion orientation and marketing strategy implementation on
profit growth is more susceptible to environmental influences
when the MNC’s marketing strategy implementation is less
standardized across country markets (i.e., adaptation). For
firms opting for an adapted marketing strategy implementation
approach, country-based interaction orientation exerts a posi-
tive effect on profit growth when competitive intensity levels
are high. By contrast, profit growth is adversely affected as
country-based interaction orientation and marketing strategy
implementation adaptation increases when market dynamism
24
levels are high. The results extend the international marketing
literature on interaction orientation (e.g., Chen et al. 2017;
Gnizy and Shoham 2014) and contribute to a growing stream
of literature in international marketing strategy on contextual
effects (e.g., Cadogan, Kuivalainen, and Sundqvist 2009; Oba-
dia 2013; Shi and Gao 2016; Spyropoulou et al. 2018).
Conceptual Model and Research Hypotheses
The ABV and MNC Profit Growth
The ABV, which originated in the work of Simon (1947) and is
often applied in the field of international strategy (e.g., Ambos
and Birkinshaw 2010; Chen, Chen, and Zhou 2014; Spyropou-
lou et al. 2018), argues that the attention of firms’ decision
makers determines firm behaviors. This theoretical perspective
is unique from traditional rational choice perspectives in that it
highlights the limitations of human rationality in explaining
firm decisions (Ocasio 1997), thus denoting the importance
of managerial focus in directing organizational activities.
Under the ABV, managerial attention influences both individ-
ual decision processes and firm structures by allocating and
distributing the focus of management (Simon 1947).
Prior research has highlighted a focus on strategic processes
and structures as central to driving firm outcomes (Chen, Chen,
and Zhou 2014; Xu, Cavusgil, and White 2006). Consistent
with the ABV, theories of firm growth denote performance
variations based on the focus and limits of managerial attention
(Joseph and Wilson 2018). Assessing how MNCs’ marketing
attention contributes to organizational performance (Katsikeas
et al. 2016) from the perspective of growth is particularly rel-
evant for development and survival in the global market. As
mentioned previously, profit growth is a key strategic firm
objective (Morgan, Slotegraaf, and Vorhies 2009) and is essen-
tial for firm expansion and innovation. Profit growth derives
from a firm’s ability to effectively engage customers, as it is
through the effective engagement of customers that firms can
offer value-added products and services, in turn reaping above-
average financial returns (Griffith and Lee 2016). In the mar-
keting strategy literature, profit growth comes from a firm’s
attention to engaging customers by strategically structuring an
interaction orientation (Ramani and Kumar 2008), which
allows the firm to leverage information obtained through suc-
cessive customer interactions to achieve profitable customer
relationships. Furthermore, and consistent with the ABV,
Kumar and Ramani (2006) argue that it is firms’ attention to
customers, driven by an interaction orientation, that engenders
competitive advantage.
The ABV further recognizes that attention in a complex
organization (e.g., an MNC) is not always uniform and that
members often have both imperfect and divergent understand-
ing of environmental signals, which affects firms’ ability to
achieve profit growth. MNCs’ international marketing imple-
mentation strategies, which are often formulated at headquar-
ters, take into consideration the organization and coordination
of marketing implementation activities across country markets
Journal of International Marketing 27(2)
in which they operate, though the responsibility for carrying
out country-based approaches rests on foreign subsidiary mar-
keting units (Hewett and Bearden 2001; Katsikeas, Samiee, and
Theodosiou 2006). Global marketing managers are faced with a
seeming tension between their firms’ structural processes of
working to engage customers in country markets and the desire
for economies attained from strategic marketing implementa-
tion standardization at the global level. The effective balance of
managerial attention and focus will heavily affect the overall
profit growth MNCs are able to reap from their overall inter-
national marketing operations. Here, we argue that MNC profit
growth is dependent on the balance of a firm’s strategic orien-
tation (e.g., country-based interaction orientation) and the
degree of its overall marketing strategy implementation
standardization.
Ocasio (1997) argues that managerial attention is localized
within the strategic orientations the firm sets to achieve its
objectives. Interaction orientation is both broader and deeper
in conceptualization than a customer-centric approach of cus-
tomer orientation (e.g., Chen, Chen, and Zhou 2014;
Deshpandé, Farley, and Webster 1993; Park, Oh, and Kasim
2017).1 Ramani and Kumar (2008) conceptualize interaction
orientation as consisting of four unique but related aspects. The
first aspect is customer concept, or the assignment of the unit of
analysis of every marketing action and reaction to the individ-
ual level. The second aspect is interaction response capacity, or
the firm’s systems to respond to heterogeneous customers dif-
ferently by pooling information from multiple sources and
points in time. The third aspect is customer empowerment, or
the extent to which a firm offers its customers avenues to con-
nect with the firm, shape transactions, and share information.
The fourth aspect is customer value management, or the extent
to which the firm can define and dynamically measure individ-
ual customer value and use it to guide marketing resource
allocations. Our extension of the construct (i.e., country-
based interaction orientation) allows us to maintain many of
the advantages of the interaction orientation construct while
capturing the firm’s ability to manage interactive relationships
with its international customers at the country level. This exten-
sion broadens the literature and provides an alternative view on
how MNCs can engage customers globally.
Furthermore, under the ABV, the strategic approach of a
country-based interaction orientation works to ensure that the
firm is responsive to customers by pooling information from
multiple country sources. Firms can accomplish this by devel-
oping systems that can define and dynamically measure cus-
tomer value at the country level, ultimately guiding marketing
resource allocations to enhance customer engagement capabil-
ities. This argumentation is consistent with that of Chen, Chen,
1
Whereas most conceptualizations of a market orientation are limited to either
a behavioral or a cultural perspective, interaction orientation is a more
comprehensive construct capturing not only the underlying belief but also
the processes and practices that supplement that belief (Ramani and Kumar
2008). Interaction orientation is also different from the broader concept of
customer relating capability (Day and Van den Bulte 2002).
Lee and Griffith
and Zhou (2014), who examine international joint ventures
under the ABV and find that a customer orientation confers
greater differentiation capability. It is also consistent with that
of Chen et al. (2017), who find that increased interaction orien-
tation enhances both market-linking and marketing
capabilities.
Joint Effect of Country-Based Interaction Orientation and
Marketing Strategy Implementation Standardization
While the country-based interaction orientation sets an MNC’s
approach to individual country markets, the implementation of
its global marketing strategy allows for the execution of its
marketing mix. Under the ABV, an MNC faces tension stem-
ming from a prima facie incompatibility between focusing
managerial attention on customer engagement, so as to provide
unique value-added offerings, and gaining economies across
markets by standardizing as much of its international marketing
strategy as possible. We posit, however, that this tension
diminishes when increased managerial attention is paid to bal-
ancing these dual goals, in which managers strive to identify
intra- and cross-market commonalities and gain synergies to
increase profit growth.
A central element of interaction orientation is the firm’s
ability to allocate individual customers to homogeneous seg-
ments that it can effectively serve (Ramani and Kumar 2008).
We contend, under the ABV, that an MNC employing a
country-based interaction orientation considers the country
markets themselves to identify segments, as managerial atten-
tion is devoted to serving segments that cut across global coun-
try markets. One way to improve coordination is to globally use
information obtained through an interaction orientation in the
respective country-level markets. With that said, MNCs must
overcome national fragmentation of markets and cross-
subsidize their operations in different parts of the world. By
doing so, they can adopt a more standardized marketing strat-
egy implementation, simultaneously meeting customers’ needs
(within segments) and capturing scale economies. A country-
based interaction orientation coupled with marketing strategy
implementation standardization increases profit growth, as
managerial attention is devoted to identifying customer
insights that could work to serve the MNC’s customer seg-
ments that cut across its global markets (i.e., finding common-
alities). An MNC’s desire to standardize its marketing mix to
enhance financial performance, inclusive of profit and return
on investment, is consistent with the findings of Cavusgil and
Zou (1994).
Alternatively, we posit that country-based interaction orien-
tation will negatively affect profit growth when coupled with
marketing strategy implementation adaptation. While customer
interactions help firms refine their knowledge about customer
tastes and preferences (Srinivasan, Anderson, and Ponnavolu
2002), they also increase MNC resource inputs. Similarly, an
adaptive marketing implementation strategy requires increased
resources (e.g., product design and modifications, advertising
and creative adaptation, identification of country-based price
25
points), which can cause significant dispersion of managerial
attention and strain resources, thus hampering profit growth.
This argumentation is consistent with the broader literature that
suggests that a customer-centric approach can be too costly
(Narver, Jacobson, and Slater 1999). In other words, the returns
of an interaction orientation coupled with an adaptive approach
to marketing strategy implementation across markets may
overshadow the gained benefits of customer engagement. Thus,
we hypothesize the following:
H1: There is a positive interaction effect of country-based
interaction orientation and marketing strategy implementa-
tion standardization on MNC profit growth.
Effects of Competitive Intensity and Market Dynamism
The joint effectiveness of MNCs’ strategic structure of
country-based interaction orientation and marketing strategy
implementation standardization may be contingent on the
environments they face across global markets. Two environ-
mental conditions that are central to engaging customers effec-
tively are competitive intensity and market dynamism (e.g.,
Cui, Griffith, and Cavusgil 2005; Griffith et al. 2017; Jaworski
and Kohli 1993; Obadia 2013; Spyropoulou et al. 2018).
Competitive intensity refers to the degree to which a firm
faces competition in a market (Cui, Griffith, and Cavusgil
2005; Griffith et al. 2017; Jaworski and Kohli 1993; Lam,
Kraus, and Ahearne 2010; Theodosiou and Katsikea 2013).
As competitive intensity increases, consumers benefit from
having a larger number of alternatives (Houston 1986; Kohli
and Jaworski 1990). From a marketing strategy standpoint, we
do not expect the intensity of competition to affect the joint
effect of country-based interaction orientation and marketing
strategy implementation standardization. The positive impact of
a country-based interaction orientation on marketing perfor-
mance outcomes is likely to be relatively unsusceptible to com-
petitive influences in the market for firms employing a more
standardized approach to their marketing implementation strat-
egy. The synergies gained through managerial attention to
knowledge generated through a country-based interaction orien-
tation approach and a more standardized approach to marketing
implementation across country markets are large enough to
cover the effort of continuous engagement with customers across
country markets. Thus, regardless of the level of competition in
the market, we expect a country-based interaction orientation to
generate a consistent level of benefits and profit growth across
variations in country market competitive intensity.
However, we argue that competitive intensity will affect the
effect of country-based interaction orientation when employed
with greater marketing strategy implementation adaptation.
Theodosiou and Katsikea (2013) argue that in situations in
which the level of competition is more intense, the firm’s abil-
ity to disseminate relevant information to the appropriate deci-
sion makers becomes a crucial input to effective market
responses. Given the pressure from competitors to better tailor
marketing strategies to market characteristics (Cui and Lui
26
2005), firms often become more adaptive (e.g., Lages, Jap, and
Griffith 2008). Under the ABV, a management focus drives
firm strategy. As competitive intensity increases, we anticipate
that MNCs will undertake a country-based interaction orienta-
tion jointly with marketing strategy implementation adaptation
across markets to benefit from managerial attention to deeper
customer engagement and the ensuing adaptation of strategy
implementation across markets. As the aspects of interaction
orientation provide an advantage over less customer-centric
competitors and because the firm’s implementation approach
is geared to satisfying specific needs, we contend that under
high competitive intensity, the MNC’s ability to leverage its
understanding of customers gained through an interaction
orientation coupled with an adaptive approach to its marketing
implementation strategy is enhanced, offsetting the inefficien-
cies and challenges of engagement and thereby magnifying its
profit growth. However, under low competition levels, the
unnecessary strain of resources by the focus on customer inter-
actions and subsequent adaptation to individual markets will
reduce profit growth. Thus,
H2: Competitive intensity negatively moderates the positive
interaction effect of country-based interaction orientation
and marketing strategy implementation standardization on
MNC profit growth.
Market dynamism refers to the degree of change in the
market (Achrol and Stern 1988; Cui, Griffith, and Cavusgil
2005; Jap 1999; Lam, Kraus, and Ahearne 2010; Shi and Gao
2016). Incorporated in this definition are market aspects such
as changing customer composition, customer preferences, and
marketing practices (Shi and Gao 2016). Inherent to market
dynamism is the concept of unpredictability. Unpredictability
decreases strategic certainty, making it more difficult for firms
to accurately plan their marketing actions (Cui, Griffith, and
Cavusgil 2005; Jap 1999; Shi and Gao 2016). Dynamic markets
affect firm operations, necessitating the ability to adapt quickly
to such changes (Jap 1999). However, the level of dynamism in
the market is not likely to affect the joint effect of country-
based interaction orientation and marketing strategy implemen-
tation standardization. We contend that, regardless of the level
of market dynamism, managerial attention to balancing cus-
tomer understanding gained through country-based interaction
orientation and marketing strategy implementation standardi-
zation enables firms to gain cross-market efficiencies at the
segment level and to maintain control over costs, even when
uncertainties prevail. Underlying this argument is the notion
that through standardization of marketing strategy implemen-
tation, firms avoid the high costs of adapting to ever-changing
country markets, thereby obtaining consistent levels of profit
growth across variations in country market dynamism.
However, we argue that market dynamism will affect the
effect of country-based interaction orientation when employed
with marketing strategy implementation adaptation. Specifi-
cally, we contend that the ability of the firm to reap profit
growth from a country-based interaction orientation and an
Journal of International Marketing 27(2)
adapted marketing strategy implementation approach will be
hampered by dynamic market changes. A country-based inter-
action orientation engaged jointly with marketing strategy
implementation adaptation focuses managerial attention on
understanding country-specific customer needs, sensing indi-
vidual market changes across all markets of operations, and
making marketing strategy modifications to suit these ever-
changing needs. However, as markets become more dynamic,
finding and adapting to commonalities across all markets and
effectively serving all unique segments of consumers across the
firm’s global markets through marketing strategy implementa-
tion adaptation become increasingly costly and difficult to
implement. Such challenges of customer engagement limit the
growth value gained from successfully engaging customers
because of higher costs. As such, we contend that greater mar-
ket dynamism mitigates the firm’s attention ability to leverage
both country-based interaction orientation and marketing strat-
egy implementation adaptation for profit growth. Thus,
H3: Market dynamism positively moderates the positive
interaction effect of country-based interaction orientation
and marketing strategy standardization adaptation on
MNC profit growth.
Research Methods
Sample and Data Collection
We used a survey of U.S.-based MNCs to test the hypotheses.
The proposed survey was reviewed by global marketers before
data collection, and a research panel of a market research com-
pany facilitated data collection (see Strizhakova and Coulter
2015; Westjohn and Magnusson 2017). We restricted the
respondent sample frame to people who self-identified as mar-
keting managers with responsibility for international opera-
tions in MNCs. To effectively assess the response rate,
emails soliciting participation in the study were sent out in
small batches on a rolling basis. Each batch allowed respon-
dents five days to participate in the survey. After this period,
other managers who met the study’s criteria were invited to
participate. The email solicitations indicated that the purpose of
the study was to understand MNC global marketing strategy.
As a qualification question, each potential respondent was
asked to indicate his or her level of active participation in the
development and administration of the firm’s global marketing
strategy. We deemed 584 respondents as qualified for the study,
and 258 managers responded to the survey. One hundred twenty-
eight surveys were complete and usable, for an effective
response rate of 21.92%. On average, MNCs in the sample
reported $16.4 billion in annual sales revenue, 25.85% of which
was attributable to international operations. The firms had
engaged in international operations for 23 years on average.
Of the responding managers, 50.4% were men and 49.6% were
women. Their mean age was 43 years, and they had approxi-
mately 8 years of international operations experience. Respon-
dents represented firms in a variety of business-to-business and
Lee and Griffith 27

Table 1. Measure Statistics and Correlation Matrix.

M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. Country-based interaction orientation 4.71 .84 .784

2. Marketing strategy implementation standardization 3.57 1.16 .229** N.A.
3. Competitive intensity 4.98 1.19 .334** .202** .791
4. Market dynamism 4.79 1.26 .216** .284** .503** .760
5. Profit growth 21.54 56.44 .265** .187* .141 .077 N.A.
6. Length of international operations 22.70 27.13 .076 -.080 .086 .113 .091 N.A.
7. International sales dependency 25.85 21.39 .076 -.075 .101 .006 .121 .350** N.A.
8. Respondent international experience 7.75 10.32 .052 .073 .015 .016 .060 .276** .141 N.A.

*p < .05.
**p < .01.
Notes: The square roots of the average variance extracted are on the diagonal. N.A. ¼ single-item and formative scales.

business-to-consumer industries, including consumer packaged
goods, software, manufacturing, and health care.
Measures
We adapted construct measurement from extant literature (see
the Appendix). Table 1 reports the descriptive statistics and
correlations.
Country-based interaction orientation. We conceptualized
country-based interaction orientation as a firm’s ability to
interact with its customers at the country-market level and
to take advantage of information obtained through success-
ful interactions to achieve profitable customer relationships.
We measured country-based interaction orientation by
adapting Ramani and Kumar’s (2008) multi-item scale,
which captures the four aspects of interaction orientation:
customer concept (two items), interaction response capabil-
ity (four items), customer empowerment (three items), and
customer value management (three items). We averaged
each of the four aspects together to provide an equal
weighted construct (a ¼ .78).
Marketing strategy implementation standardization. We concep-
tualized marketing strategy implementation standardization
as the extent to which the MNC standardizes or adapts its
overall marketing mix. We based our measure of this vari-
able on Roth’s (1995) areas of marketing implementation
problems, and it is consistent with the holistic global mar-
keting strategy approaches of Zou and Cavusgil (2002) and
Shi and Gao (2016). Through this approach, we gained an
understanding of the MNCs’ relative emphasis on standar-
dization, with the low end of the scale reflecting less stan-
dardization and, thus, greater adaptation across the MNCs’
markets and marketing-mix elements. We measured market-
ing strategy implementation standardization with a five-
item, seven-point Likert scale assessing the extent of the
firm’s use of standardization in all its markets in relation
to (1) distribution channels, (2) prices, (3) advertising and
promotion, (4) product characteristics, and (5) service
delivery.
Competitive intensity. We conceptualized competitive intensity
as the degree to which firms face competition in the market
(Cui, Griffith, and Cavusgil 2005; Jaworski and Kohli 1993;
Lam, Kraus, and Ahearne 2010). We captured competitive
intensity using Lam, Kraus, and Ahearne’s (2010) three-
item, seven-point Likert scale assessing whether (1) compe-
tition in the industry is cutthroat across the markets in
which the firm competes, (2) competition is relatively
strong, and (3) the competition in country markets from
other firms offering similar products and services is
immense (a ¼ .83).
Market dynamism. We conceptualized market dynamism as the
degree of change in the market (Cui, Griffith, and Cavusgil
2005; Jap 1999). Building on the work of Cui, Griffith, and
Cavusgil (2005) and Jap (1999), we measured market dyna-
mism with a two-item, seven-point Likert scale that captured
whether (1) the environmental demands on the firm were con-
stantly changing and (2) the marketing practices in the industry
were constantly changing (a ¼ .73).
Profit growth. We conceptualized profit growth as the firm’s
profit growth rate over the last year. The use of profit growth
is theoretically consistent with the notion that an interaction
orientation is focused on driving profit. It also aligns with
Cadogan’s (2012) call for theoretical and operationalization
consistency when applying strategic orientations and Leh-
mann and Winer’s (2009) argument that linking marketing
actions with profit growth is necessary for marketing to be
given greater input within firms. Profit growth is both con-
crete and singular (i.e., firms have one profit growth rate). As
such, consistent with arguments for the measurement of con-
crete and singular constructs (e.g., Bergkvist and Rossiter
2007), we employ a single-item measure that asks respon-
dents to indicate the specific profit growth rate of their MNCs
over the last year.
Control variables. In an effort to minimize spuriousness of the
results, we included several control variables. The international
marketing literature indicates that both firm and respondent
characteristics can affect marketing strategy effectiveness
(e.g., Lam, Kraus, and Ahearne 2010; Roth 1995; Zou and
28
Cavusgil 2002). As such, we included the length of interna-
tional operations (in years), international sales dependency
(measured as the percentage of firm total sales derived from
international operations), and the manager’s length of experi-
ence in international operations.
Reliability and Validity of Measures
We estimated the measurement model using confirmatory fac-
tor analysis with Mplus 8. The measurement model consisted
of the reflective multi-item latent constructs of interaction
orientation, competitive intensity, and market dynamism. The
Appendix reports the results of the measurement model analy-
sis, together with item loadings, composite reliabilities, and
average variances extracted (AVEs).
We assessed the reliability of individual items by evalu-
ating the loadings of the items on their respective latent
construct. Hulland (1999) argues that loadings of less than
.50 may represent poorly worded or inappropriate items and
thus should be eliminated from the model. As the Appendix
shows, the measurement items exceed this threshold and
loaded significantly on the expected constructs (ranging
from .71 to .85). Furthermore, all constructs have acceptable
levels of reliability, with the computed Cronbach’s alpha
ranging from .73 to .83 and composite reliability coeffi-
cients ranging from .73 to .86 for each construct. These
values exceed the recommended thresholds of .70 (Nunnally
1978) and .60 (Bagozzi and Yi 1988), respectively. Conver-
gent validity is also evident, with the AVE for each con-
struct ranging between .58 and .63, exceeding the .50
benchmark (Fornell and Larcker 1981). To test for discri-
minant validity, we used Fornell and Larcker’s (1981)
approach by assessing whether the square root of the AVE
of each construct (see the diagonal in Table 1) was greater
than the correlations between variables. All constructs
demonstrate discriminant validity.
The overall chi-square goodness-of-fit index for the model
is 253.392 based on 112 degrees of freedom. The measurement
fit indexes for the confirmatory measurement models all meet
the critical values for a model of good fit (Hu and Bentler
1999): The comparative fit index was .902, the root mean
square error of approximation was .079, and the standardized
root mean square residual was .066.
Cross-sectional surveys in which both the independent
and dependent variables derive from the same source are
susceptible to common method bias (Podsakoff et al.
2003). We tested for the potential presence of common
method variance, consistent with prior marketing literature
(e.g., Kim et al. 2011), using the marker variable test. We
selected a marker variable—product implementation prob-
lems—as a proxy for method variance (Lindell and Whitney
2001). This variable is theoretically unrelated to at least one
of the study constructs. We measured product implementa-
tion problems with a seven-point Likert-type scale (1 ¼ “no
problems,” and 7 ¼ “many problems”) that captures the
extent to which the firm perceives experiencing marketing
Journal of International Marketing 27(2)
implementation problems in its country markets in relation
to product characteristics. We partialed out the variable’s
coefficients from the bivariate correlations and then com-
pared the results with unadjusted correlations. After we par-
tialed out the marker variable, most of the significant
bivariate correlations between key predictors and outcomes
maintained their statistical significance. Furthermore, we
note that all the hypotheses in the model involve interac-
tions and therefore “cannot be artifacts of [common method
variance]” (Siemsen, Roth, and Oliveira 2010, p. 456).
Thus, we conclude that the risk of common method bias
is minimal.
Analysis and Results
Hypothesis Testing
We centered all the variables before conducting multiple
regression analyses, as Aiken and West (1991) recommend.
Multicollinearity was not a significant issue; the maximum
variance inflation factor (i.e., 2.394) and the maximum condi-
tion index (i.e., 4.744) were below 10 and 30, respectively.
Table 2 reports the results.
H1 predicted a positive interaction effect of country-based
interaction orientation and marketing strategy implementation
standardization on MNC profit growth. The results show a
positive and significant interaction, in support of H1 (Table
2; b ¼ .287, t ¼ 3.649, p < .001). To further clarify the mean-
ing of the significant interaction, we examined it following the
procedure Aiken and West (1991) outline. The simple slope
analysis (Figure 1) indicates that country-based interaction
orientation has a positive effect on MNC profit growth when
the firm takes a more standardized approach to marketing strat-
egy implementation (simple slope b ¼ 12.29, t ¼ 1.94) but has
a negative effect on profit growth when marketing strategy
implementation is more adapted (simple slope b ¼ 18.06, t
¼ 2.74).
In H2, we theorized that competitive intensity would nega-
tively moderate the positive interaction effect of country-based
interaction orientation and marketing strategy implementation
standardization on MNC profit growth. In support of H2, the
results indicate that the three-way interaction among country-
based interaction orientation, marketing strategy implementa-
tion standardization, and competitive intensity is negative and
significant (Table 2; b ¼ .322, t ¼ 2.902, p < .01). Figure 2
plots the significant three-way interaction (Aiken and West
1991). The simple slope analysis indicates that competitive
intensity only affects the effect of country-based interaction
orientation when firms implement an adapted marketing strat-
egy. Panel A shows that in the case of marketing strategy
implementation standardization, country-based interaction
orientation does not have an effect on MNC profit growth in
environments characterized by either high (simple slope b ¼
6.48, t ¼ .60) or low (simple slope b ¼ 3.83, t ¼ .42)
competitive intensity. Panel B shows that when firms employ
a marketing strategy implementation adaptation approach,
Lee and Griffith 29

Table 2. Least Squares Regression Results.

Model 1a Model 1b Model 1c

Predictors b t b t b t

Length of international operations .092 .940 .059 .684 .097 1.168

International sales dependency .164 1.724 .142 1.724 .130 1.638
Respondent international experience .063 .675 .071 .878 .018 .227
Country-based interaction orientation (CBIO) .150 1.575 .051 .605 .093 1.131
Marketing strategy implementation standardization (MSIS) .097 1.043 .097 1.198 .104 1.302
Competitive intensity (CI) .035 .326 .230* 2.276 .100 .975
Market dynamism (MD) .095 .888 .128 1.364 .030 .320
CBIO  MSIS .287*** 3.649 .123 1.324
CBIO  CI .384*** 3.648 .394*** 3.910
CBIO  MD .425*** 4.314 .424*** 4.489
MSIS  CI .022 .250 .155 1.477
MSIS  MD .175* 2.001 .186* 2.222
CI  MD .19 1.810 .158 1.568
CBIO  MSIS  CI .322** 2.902
CBIO  MSIS  MD .315** 3.195
Adjusted R2 .006 .282 .349
F-value 1.13 4.838*** 5.532***
*p < .05.
**p < .01.
***p < .001.
Notes: Dependent variable is profit growth (%). Standardized coefficients are reported. Two-tailed tests.

In H3, we theorized that market dynamism would posi-

60
tively moderate the positive interaction effect of country-
based interaction orientation and marketing strategy imple-
50
mentation standardization on MNC profit growth. The results
indicate that the three-way interaction among country-based
40 interaction orientation, marketing strategy implementation
Profit Growth (%)

standardization, and market dynamism is positive and signif-

30 icant, in support of H3 (Table 2: b ¼ .315, t ¼ 3.195, p < .01).
Figure 3 plots the significant three-way interaction (Aiken
20 and West 1991). Panel A shows that in the case of marketing
strategy implementation standardization, country-based inter-
10 action orientation does not affect profit growth in markets
characterized by either high (simple slope b ¼ 4.29, t ¼
0 .64) or low (simple slope b ¼ 6.95, t ¼ .58) market dyna-
Low Country-Based High Country-Based mism. Panel B shows that when firms employ a marketing
Interaction Orientation Interaction Orientation strategy implementation adaptation approach, country-based
−10
interaction orientation has a negative effect on profit growth
Adaptation Standardization in high market dynamism (simple slope b ¼ 47.45, t ¼
6.13) but a positive effect on profit growth in low market
Figure 1. Interaction effect of country-based interaction orientation dynamism (simple slope b ¼ 24.01, t ¼ 2.29). Thus, although
and marketing strategy implementation standardization on profit the direction of H3 is as expected, the results again indicate a
growth. more nuanced effect than theorized.
Notes: Both slopes in this figure are significant.

country-based interaction orientation has a positive effect on Additional Findings

MNC profit growth in high-competitive-intensity markets
(simple slope b ¼ 24.23, t ¼ 2.27) but a negative effect on
profit growth in low-competitive-intensity markets (simple
slope b ¼ 47.66, t ¼ 4.97). Thus, although the direction
of H2 is as expected, the results indicate a more nuanced effect
than theorized.
Though not directly hypothesized, we find a positive interac-
tion effect of country-based interaction orientation and com-
petitive intensity on MNC profit growth (Table 2: b ¼ .384, t ¼
3.648, p < .001). The simple slope analysis indicates that in
high-competitive-intensity markets, country-based interaction
orientation has a positive effect on MNC profit growth (simple
30 Journal of International Marketing 27(2)

A: Marketing Strategy Implementation Standardization A: Marketing Strategy Implementation Standardization

70 70

60 60

50 50

40

Profit Growth (%)

Profit Growth (%)

40

30
30
20
20
10
10
0
0 Low Country-Based High Country-Based
Low Country-Based High Country-Based −10 Interaction Orientation Interaction Orientation
−10 Interaction Orientation Interaction Orientation
−20
High market dynamism
−20
High competitive intensity Low market dynamism
Low competitive intensity

B: Marketing Strategy Implementation Adaptation

B: Marketing Strategy Implementation Adaptation 70

70 60

60 50

50
Profit Growth (%)

40
Profit Growth (%)

40 30

30 20

20 10

10
0 −10
Low Country-Based High Country-Based
−10 Interaction Orientation Interaction Orientation
−20
High competitive intensity
Low competitive intensity
Figure 2. Interaction effect of country-based interaction orientation,
marketing strategy implementation standardization, and competitive
intensity on profit growth.
Notes: Solid lines indicate a significant slope; dotted lines indicate a nonsignifi-
cant slope.
slope b ¼ 17.16, t ¼ 2.30), but the effect is reversed in low-
competitive-intensity markets (simple slope b ¼ 22.93, t
¼ 3.24). In addition, we find a negative interaction effect
of country-based interaction orientation and market dyna-
mism on MNC profit growth (Table 2: b ¼ .425, t ¼
4.314, p < .001). The simple slope analysis indicates that
country-based interaction orientation has a negative effect
on MNC profit growth when market dynamism levels are
high (simple slope b ¼ 23.62, t ¼ –4.14) but a positive
0
Low Country-Based High Country-Based
Interaction Orientation Interaction Orientation
−20
High market dynamism
Low market dynamism
Figure 3. Interaction effect of country-based interaction orientation,
marketing strategy implementation standardization, and market
dynamism on profit growth.
Notes: Solid lines indicate a significant slope; dotted lines indicate a nonsignifi-
cant slope.
effect on MNC profit growth when market dynamism levels
are low (simple slope b ¼ 17.85, t ¼ 2.32). Finally, the
results indicate a significant and negative interaction
between marketing strategy implementation standardization
and market dynamism (Table 2: b ¼ .175, t ¼ 2.00, p <
.05). The simple slope analysis indicates that marketing
strategy implementation standardization has a negative
effect on MNC profit growth when market dynamism levels
are high (simple slope b ¼ 10.86, t ¼ 2.48) but has no
effect on profit growth when market dynamism levels are
low (simple slope b ¼ 3.38, t ¼ .67).
Lee and Griffith
Discussion
This work extends understanding of international marketing in
MNCs under the ABV. Specifically, this study provides new
insights into how MNCs’ joint adoption of a country-based
interaction orientation and marketing implementation strategy
standardization drives profit growth, subject to the context of
competitive intensity and market dynamism. Our findings from
a survey of U.S.-based MNCs provide several new theoretical
and managerial implications for international marketing scho-
lars and managers.
Theoretical Implications
This work extends the literature on international marketing
strategy (e.g., Chen, Chen, and Zhou 2014) and adaptation/
standardization (e.g., Jain 1989; Ryans, Griffith, and White
2003; Tan and Sousa 2013; Westjohn and Magnusson 2017;
Zou and Cavusgil 2002) by framing the discussion under the
ABV as the interplay between managerial focus on strategic
orientation and international marketing strategy implementa-
tion. The findings advance a view that recognizes that market-
ing strategy implementation is a tactical marketing-mix
executional aspect that managers need to consider jointly with
their firms’ strategic orientation when engaging with global
customers (e.g., Buzzell 1968).
Moreover, the results suggest that global marketing man-
agers need to balance the structural process of interacting
with customers in country markets and its standardization of
strategic marketing implementation desire at the global level
to ease the prima facie tension of competing approaches and
find commonalities. MNCs that focus managerial attention
on the strategic orientation of country-based interaction
orientation, by implementing structures to collect, process,
and strategically use customer information while employing
a marketing strategy implementation of adaptation (thereby
working to align approaches), experience increased costs
and managerial inefficiencies, which limit profit growth
(at least in the short run). These inefficiencies may be due
to the dispersion of managerial attention and the complex-
ities of controlling and coordinating interactions with cus-
tomers across global markets characterized by diverse needs
and preferences and following adaptation of marketing strat-
egy implementation to cater these customers across the
firm’s subsidiaries. The inability to foresee inefficiencies
is consistent with argumentation under the ABV of the lim-
itations of human rationality, as well as marketing literature
documenting that the cost of customer engagement strate-
gies can offset potential gains (Kumar et al. 2011; Narver,
Jacobson, and Slater 1999). Furthermore, the finding that
country-based interaction orientation has a positive effect
on MNC profit growth under marketing strategy implemen-
tation standardization indicates the necessity of finding
commonalities across markets.
The findings also extend extant international marketing
literature on the role of environmental context in
31
international marketing strategy effectiveness (e.g., Cui,
Griffith, and Cavusgil 2005; Obadia 2013; Shi and Gao
2016; Spyropoulou et al. 2018). For firms that take a more
standardized approach to their marketing strategy imple-
mentation, greater competitive intensity in global markets
does not affect profit growth levels resulting from attention
paid to a strategic orientation of customer engagement at the
country level. By contrast, the findings indicate that the
joint effect of country-based interaction orientation and
marketing strategy implementation adaptation on profit
growth varies depending on the competitive intensity level
of markets in which MNCs operate. This provides strong
foundational evidence that though the inefficiencies arising
from managing interactions with global customers and the
coordination of adapting marketing strategy implementation
across markets may adversely affect profit growth in less
competitive environments, in highly competitive environ-
ments, a firm’s ability to focus on the customer-oriented
processes and structure of interaction orientation and the
ensuing adaptation of the implementation strategy is crucial
to achieve substantive advantage.
Finally, our findings highlight the limitation of country-
based interaction orientation, as market dynamism increases
within the MNC context. As noted previously, Ramani and
Kumar (2008) propose that interaction orientation puts pro-
cesses and structures into place to build homogeneous market
segments. When extended to the country level, in highly
dynamic markets in which consumers move in and out of
segments quickly as individual needs and wants change, it
may be difficult for MNCs to effectively engage the markets.
As markets become more dynamic, MNCs’ ability to quickly
incorporate and process information obtained through a
country-based interaction orientation to effectively serve all
unique segments of consumers through adaptation becomes
difficult, hindering their ability to make necessary changes.
The complexities and inefficiencies of following marketing
implementation adaptation are exacerbated in dynamic mar-
ket environments and limit firms’ profit growth realization,
suggesting that a country-based interaction orientation
coupled with marketing strategy implementation adaptation
is detrimental to short-term profit growth in highly dynamic
markets. By contrast, firms focused on a more standardized
approach to marketing strategy implementation in combina-
tion with country-level interaction orientation avoid the
increased costs of adapting to a dynamic market and experi-
ence consistent levels of profit growth even under market
turbulence. These findings highlight the limitations of human
rationality (Ocasio 1997) under the ABV when an MNC’s
strategic approach and marketing strategy implementation are
considered jointly with market dynamism.
Managerial Implications
The findings have several implications for managers. First, we
recommend that managers assess the value of a country-based
interaction orientation in securing profit growth, given
32
variations in international marketing strategy implementation
approaches in global markets. Global marketing managers face
tension between the structural processes of interacting with
their customers in country markets and the strategic marketing
implementation desired at the global level. This tension creates
a context in which customer engagement in country markets
may not always be effective in positively boosting MNC per-
formance. As such, we recommend that global marketing man-
agers begin by accounting for the specific costs associated with
their firms’ country-based interaction orientation and then proj-
ect cost variations across levels of marketing strategy imple-
mentation standardization. They can then develop optimization
models to best understand the overall joint effects on profit
growth.
Second, joint consideration of strategic orientation and
implementation can be a challenge, as often the decision
authority of these two important aspects are not colocated
(Katsikeas, Samiee, and Theodosiou 2006). Although both
come from senior-level managers, MNCs’ strategic orienta-
tion toward customer engagement is often dictated by senior
leadership (i.e., chief executive officer [CEO]). Alternatively,
the decisional control over the implementation aspect of
firms’ international marketing strategy is more tactical in
nature and, though still residing in the C-suite (i.e., chief
marketing officer [CMO]), is often decided separately from
firms’ overall strategic orientation. One option would be for
senior management to jointly consider the strategic orienta-
tion and the marketing strategy implementation. However, we
contend that elevating international marketing strategy imple-
mentation to the decisional level of the CEO could be funda-
mentally unsound, as the CEO’s expertise may not be in this
domain. Rather, we recommend that CMOs keep the degree of
international marketing strategy implementation standardiza-
tion within their decisional scope and align it with their firms’
overall strategic orientation so as to achieve synergistic out-
comes and avoid detrimental ones that may lower profit
growth.
Third, we argue that focusing managerial attention on
country-based interaction orientation coupled with interna-
tional marketing strategy implementation adaptation will not
result in the same level of profit growth within all market
contexts. Rather, managers should carefully measure the
environmental conditions in which they operate. Here, we
advise that when faced with intensive competition in global
markets (e.g., level of industry concentration, number of
new competitive products introduced, increases in price
competition), managers should try to leverage the processes
and structures of an interaction orientation to build and
nurture homogeneous customer segments across markets.
Increases in global competition simultaneously increase
consumer choice and create price pressure. In this situation,
a country-based interaction orientation can provide a buffer
to competition because of the firm’s ability to engage its
customer segments.
Similarly, managers should try to understand the limita-
tions of the benefits gained from joint consideration of a
Journal of International Marketing 27(2)
country-based interaction orientation and an adaptive mar-
keting strategy implementation approach. For example,
adoption of a country-based interaction orientation and mar-
keting strategy implementation adaptation may provide
managers with the false belief that they are well engaged
with local customers and therefore well prepared for
changes in the market. While country-based interaction
orientation leads to significant customer engagement, in
terms of understanding idiosyncratic customer segments,
managers need to realize that for an MNC, increased market
dynamism is a worthy challenge. The changing nature of
customer needs and wants can both benefit and harm profit
growth levels, particularly when MNCs adapt their market-
ing implementation strategy across markets. As such, we
recommend that MNC managers remain vigilant in measur-
ing the changing nature of the customer marketplace, to be
able to quickly assess whether their approach to customer
engagement and/or marketing strategy implementation adap-
tation can increase firm profitability (or other strategic
MNC goals) or whether the costs of adaptations outweigh
the benefits returned to the firm.
Limitations and Future Research Directions
This work provides new and important insights into interna-
tional marketing strategy. However, the findings should be
considered in light of the work’s limitations. First, this work
focused only on profit growth, given its alignment with the
theoretical argumentation of interaction orientation (Ramani
and Kumar 2008) and its importance to marketing managers
(Morgan, Slotegraaf, and Vorhies 2009). Although our research
advances the literature beyond traditional performance mea-
sures such as satisfaction (a widely used measure of perfor-
mance; Chen, Sousa, and He 2016), our focus on profit
growth also limits the findings. For example, profit growth is
only one of many important performance measures2 of the
impact of marketing strategy (see Katsikeas et al. 2016). As
such, increased insights could be gleaned by using other
accounting-based performance metrics, such as leverage, cash
flow, or revenue growth, or through measures such as customer
acquisition/retention (which would also align theoretically with
country-based interaction orientation). Furthermore, although
we endeavored to assess profit growth, our measurement of this
construct was through self-reports, captured through a cross-
sectional survey,3 and only served to capture short-term profit
growth (i.e., last year’s profit growth). Capturing objective
2
Profit growth exhibited a nonnormal distribution wherein a small number of
MNCs indicated having high performance (i.e., extremely high levels of profit
growth) and the majority of MNCs indicated they were within the 0%–20%
range).
3
We ran post hoc models connected with an alternative causal ordering (i.e.,
reverse ordering of country-based interaction orientation, marketing strategy
implementation standardization, and MNC profit growth) given the
cross-sectional nature of the data. The comparison of the model fit best
support our original conceptual model.
Lee and Griffith
profit growth, as well as using a longer horizon to validate the
full extent of the time-varying effect of country-based interac-
tion orientation on business performance (Kumar et al. 2011)
would provide increased validity for its assessment. We also
captured only short-term profit growth; however, it could be
argued that profit growth from a country-based interaction
orientation and marketing strategy implementation occurs over
longer time horizons, suggesting the need for a broader assess-
ment of the effects found in this work.
Second, although the examination of country-based interac-
tion orientation was based on an established scale, more work
needs to be done to refine and tighten the conceptualization and
operationalization of the multi-component construct. It may be
of value to further clarify the meaning of the scale ends. For
instance, for an MNC to be low on country-based interaction
orientation could indicate various different approaches (e.g., do
they alternatively interact with customers at the individual
level or do they not interact at all?). This aspect of the construct
is not entirely perspicuous in the current study and would ben-
efit future examinations of country-based interaction orienta-
tion and its performance effects.
Third, although our model incorporated two important
marketing elements (i.e., country-based interaction orienta-
tion and marketing strategy implementation standardization)
and explained significant variance in profit growth, other
aspects of MNC strategy could be incorporated. For example,
a firm’s strategic orientation toward the marketplace could be
an important avenue for investigation. Griffith, Kiessling, and
Dabic (2012), using the strategic orientations of Miles et al.’s
(1978) typology (i.e., defender, reactor, analyzer, and pro-
spector), demonstrate that a firm’s overall strategic orienta-
tion can be useful in understanding how firms relate to their
markets given a set of market conditions. Furthermore, it may
be of value under the ABV to specifically measure the mag-
nitude of managerial attention to specific strategic
approaches. To do so, research could count mentions of
strategic approaches within internal management communi-
cations, such as through text analysis of emails within the
C-suite, or in other corporate communications (e.g., annual
reports, media statements). Furthermore, while we examined
MNCs’ holistic approach to marketing strategy implementa-
tion in combination with their customer engagement strategy
at the country level, it would be fruitful to determine whether
MNC performance improves by adapting/standardizing cer-
tain aspects of the marketing-mix elements. For example,
what are the profit growth effects when products are standar-
dized across markets but distribution and placement strategies
are adapted?
Fourth, although country-based interaction orientation
provides a new and useful lens for understanding how an
MNC approaches its markets, our study could be further
enhanced by exploring the set of capabilities that evolve
from such an approach. Morgan, Feng, and Whitler (2018)
33
call for research focusing on examining the capability–per-
formance mechanism for “adding value” to a firm’s assets,
such as understanding customers and building brands. In
this case, specifically examining value-added benefits
within brand strategies across markets could be extremely
helpful. For example, country-based interaction orientation
works to address customer acquisition and retention. As
each market may relate to the firm’s brand uniquely, under-
standing how the firm creates unique brand associations
across markets would help shed light on global and local
branding issues (see Gürhan-Canli, Sarıal-Abi, and Hayran
2018; Özsomer 2012).
Fifth, although our model controls for several factors
potentially affecting profit growth, further research could
include other market and competitive factors. For example,
investigation of country-based interaction orientation within
the context of importer–exporter relationships could be of
substantive value to international marketing managers (Leo-
nidou et al. 2014; Westjohn and Magnusson 2017; Yalcin-
kaya, Calantone, and Griffith 2007). Importer–exporter
relationships are a substantive aspect of the international mar-
ketplace, and many manufacturers reach customers through
this important channel. A key unexplored research question is
the importance of alignment of country-based interaction
orientation across international channel partners (i.e., impor-
ter, exporter, and manufacturer) for effective market connec-
tivity. We theorize that it is only when all three international
channel partners align on country-based interaction orienta-
tion that profit growth for all can be achieved. In addition, our
data did not allow us to identify the market type of respon-
dents (i.e., business-to-business or business-to-consumer),
thus preventing us from controlling for or testing such differ-
ences. The effect of a country-based interaction orientation is
likely to differ depending on market type (Ramani and Kumar
2008) and thus should be accounted for in research examining
global customer engagement activities (Gupta, Pansari, and
Kumar 2018).
Finally, an additional extension of this work would be to
explore the interaction of an MNC’s country-based interac-
tion orientation with its information technology and market-
ing analytics capabilities. As MNCs face increasing volume,
velocity, veracity, and variety of data, not only their strategic
approach to markets but also their ability to handle data across
markets will enable them to effectively grow (Johnson,
Friend, and Lee 2017). Song, Nason, and Di Benedetto
(2008) provide foundational measures for market-linking,
technical, marketing, and information technology capabil-
ities. Further research might extend these capability mea-
sures, in light of both current technological issues and
marketing capability measurement guidance (e.g., Moorman
and Day 2016; Morgan, Feng, and Whitler 2018), to advance
the literature in this important area.
34 Journal of International Marketing 27(2)

Appendix. Measurement Results

Construct Description Λ

Country-Based Interaction (1 ¼ “strongly disagree,” 7 ¼ “strongly agree”) .81

Orientationa Customer Concept
(adapted from Ramani and Kumar 2008)  This firm believes that each country market cannot be satisfied with the same set of
AVE ¼ .62 products or services.b
CR ¼ .86  This firm consciously seeks to identify and acquire new customers within each
a ¼ .78 market.
 The firm believes that customer’s reactions to marketing action should be observed at
the country level.

Interaction Response Capacity .85

 This firm has systems in place that record customer’s transactions within each
country market.
 This firm can identify customer transactions pertaining to each country market.
 This firm analyzes previous customer transactions at the country level to predict
future transactions from that country.
 In this firm, all customer interfaces possess transaction information on customers in
each market at all times.

Customer Empowerment .73

 This firm encourages customers in each market to share opinions of its products or
serviced with the firm.
 This firm encourages customers in each market to share opinions of its products or
services with other customers.
 This firm encourages customers in each market to participate interactively in
designing products and services.

Customer Value Management .75

 The firm has an excellent idea of what customers in each market have been
contributing to its profits.
 This firm predicts that customers in each market will contribute to its profits in the
future.
 This firm computes the revenue generated as a result of every marketing action
directed at each country market.

Marketing Strategy Implementation  The firm uses standardized distribution channels in all of its markets. N.A.
Standardizationa  The firm uses standardized prices for its products and services in all of its markets.
(adapted from Roth 1995)  The used standardized advertising and promotion for its products and services in all of
its markets.
 The firm used standardized product characteristics in all of its markets.
 The firm uses standardized service delivery in all of its markets.

Competitive Intensitya  Competition in this industry is cutthroat across the markets we compete in. .76
(adapted from Lam, Kraus, and Ahearne
2010)  Competition in the country markets we operate in is relatively strong. .83
AVE ¼ .63
CR ¼ .84  The competition in country markets from other firms offering similar products and .79
a ¼ .83 services is immense.

Market Dynamisma  The environment demands on us are constantly changing. .71

(adapted from Jap 1999)
AVE ¼ .58  Marketing practices in our industry are constantly changing. .81
CR ¼ .73
a ¼ .73
Length of International Operations How many years has your firm engaged in international operations? N.A.
International Sales Dependency What percentage of your firm’s total sales are derived from your international operations? N.A.
Respondent International Experience How many years have you been engaged in international operations? N.A.
a
Item measured on a scale from 1 ¼ “strongly disagree,” to 7 ¼ “strongly agree.”
b
Deleted item due to low loading.
Notes: N.A. ¼ not applicable.
Lee and Griffith
Associate Editor
Seigyoung Auh served as associate editor for this article.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Achrol, Ravi S., and Louis W. Stern (1988), “Environmental Deter-
minants of Decision-Making Uncertainty in Marketing Channels,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 25 (1), 36–50.
Aiken, Leona S., and Stephen G. West (1991), Multiple Regression.
Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.
Ambos, Tina C., and Julian Birkinshaw (2010), “How Do MNC Head-
quarters Add Value?” Management International Review, 50 (4),
449–69.
Bagozzi, Richard P., and Youjae Yi (1988), “On the Evaluation of
Structural Equation Models,” Journal of the Academy of Marketing
Science, 16 (1), 74–94.
Bergkvist, Lars, and John R. Rossiter (2007), “The Predictive Validity
of Multiple-Item Versus Single-Item Measures of the Same Con-
structs,” Journal of Marketing Research, 44 (2), 175–84.
Buzzell, Robert D. (1968), “Can You Standardize Multinational Mar-
keting?” Harvard Business Review, 49 (68603), 102–13.
Cadogan, John W. (2012), “International Marketing, Strategic Orien-
tations and Business Success: Reflections on the Path Ahead,”
International Marketing Review, 29 (4), 340–48.
Cadogan, John W., Olli Kuivalainen, and Sanna Sundqvist (2009),
“Export Market-Oriented Behavior and Export Performance:
Quadratic and Moderating Effects Under Differing Degrees of
Market Dynamism and Internationalization,” Journal of Interna-
tional Marketing, 17 (4), 71–89.
Cavusgil, S. Tamer, Seyda Deligonul, and Attila Yaprak (2005),
“International Marketing as a Field of Study: A Critical Assess-
ment of Earlier Development and a Look Forward,” Journal of
International Marketing, 13 (4), 1–27.
Cavusgil, S. Tamer, and Shaoming Zou (1994), “Marketing Strategy-
Performance Relationship: An Investigation of the Empirical Link
in Export Market Ventures,” Journal of Marketing, 58 (1), 1–21.
Chen, Jieke, Carlos M.P. Sousa, and Xinming He (2016), “The Deter-
minants of Export Performance: A Review of the Literature 2006-
2014,” International Marketing Review, 33 (5), 626–70.
Chen, Xiaoyun, Alex Xin Chen, and Kevin Zheng Zhou (2014),
“Strategic Orientation, Foreign Parent Control, and Differentiation
Capability Building of International Joint Ventures in an Emerging
Market,” Journal of International Marketing, 22 (3), 30–49.
Chen, Yen-Chun, Po-Chien Li, Kenneth R. Evans, and Todd J. Arnold
(2017), “Interaction Orientation and Product Development Perfor-
mance for Taiwanese Electronics Firms: The Mediating Role of
Market-Relating Capabilities,” Journal of Product Innovation
Management, 34 (1), 13–34.
35
Cui, Anna Shaojie, David A. Griffith, and S. Tamer Cavusgil (2005),
“The Influence of Competitive Intensity and Market Dynamism on
Knowledge Management Capabilities of Multinational Corpora-
tion Subsidiaries,” Journal of International Marketing, 13 (3),
32–53.
Cui, Geng, and Hon-Kwong Lui (2005), “Order of Entry and Perfor-
mance of Multinational Corporations in an Emerging Market: A
Contingent Resource Perspective,” Journal of International Mar-
keting, 13 (4), 28–56.
Day, George S., and Christophe Van den Bulte (2002), “Superiority in
Customer Relationship Management: Consequences for Competi-
tive Advantage and Performance,” Marketing Science Institute
Working Paper 02-0123.
Deshpandé, Rohit, John U. Farley, and Frederick E. Webster Jr.
(1993), “Corporate Culture, Customer Orientation, and Innovative-
ness in Japanese Firms: A Quadrad Analysis,” Journal of Market-
ing, 57 (1), 23–37.
Fornell, Claes, and David F. Larcker (1981), “Evaluating Structural
Equation Models with Unobservable Variables and Measurement
Error,” Journal of Marketing Research, 18 (1), 39–50.
Gnizy, Itzhak, and Aviv Shoham (2014), “Uncovering the Influence of
the International Marketing Function in International Firms,”
International Marketing Review, 31 (1), 51–78.
Griffith, David A., Timothy Kiessling, and Marina Dabic (2012),
“Aligning Strategic Orientation with Local Market Conditions:
Implications for Subsidiary Knowledge Management,” Interna-
tional Marketing Review, 29 (4), 379–402.
Griffith, David A., and Hannah S. Lee (2016), “Cross-National Col-
laboration of Marketing Personnel Within a Multinational: Lever-
aging Customer Participation for New Product Advantage,”
Journal of International Marketing, 24 (4), 1–19.
Griffith, David A., Goksel Yalcinkaya, Gaia Rubera, and Verdiana
Giannetti (2017), “Understanding the Importance of the Length
of Global Product Rollout: An Examination in the Motion Pic-
ture Industry,” Journal of International Marketing, 25 (4),
50–69.
Gupta, Shapali, Anita Pansari, and V. Kumar (2018), “Global Cus-
tomer Engagement.” Journal of International Marketing, 26 (1),
4–29.
Gürhan-Canli, Zeynep, Gülen Sarıal-Abi, and Ceren Hayran (2018),
“Consumers and Brands Across the Globe: Research Synthesis and
New Directions,” Journal of International Marketing, 26 (1),
96–117.
Hernandez, Julio J., David Conway, and Tim Knight (2018),
“Tomorrow’s Experience, Today: Harnessing a Customer First
Approach in a Changing World,” KPMG Global Customer Expe-
rience Excellence Report (November 10), https://assets.kpmg.com/
content/dam/kpmg/xx/pdf/2018/06/tomorrows-experience-today-
harnessing-a-customer-first-approach.pdf.
Hewett, Kelly, and William O. Bearden (2001), “Dependence, Trust,
and Relational Behavior on the Part of Foreign Subsidiary Market-
ing Operations: Implications for Managing Global Marketing
Operations,” Journal of Marketing, 65 (4), 51–66.
Houston, Franklin S. (1986), “The Marketing Concept: What It Is
What It Is Not,” Journal of Marketing, 50 (2), 81–87.
36
Hovivian, Françoise (2016), “Globalization: Apple’s One-Size Fits-
All Approach,” Brand Quarterly (November 10), http://www.brand
quarterly.com/globalization-apples-one-size-fits-approach.
Hu, Li-tze, and Peter M. Bentler (1999), “Cutoff Criteria for Fit
Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis: Conventional Criteria
Versus New Alternatives,” Structural Equation Modeling: A Mul-
tidisciplinary Journal, 6 (1), 1–55.
Hulland, John (1999), “Use of Partial Least Squares (PLS) in Strategic
Management Research: A Review of Four Recent Studies,” Stra-
tegic Management Journal, 20 (2), 195–204.
Jain, Subhash C. (1989), “Standardization of International Marketing
Strategy: Some Research Hypotheses,” Journal of Marketing, 53
(1), 70–79.
Jap, Sandy D. (1999), “Pie-Expansion Efforts: Collaboration Pro-
cesses in Buyer-Supplier Relationships,” Journal of Marketing
Research, 36 (4), 461–75.
Jaworski, Bernard J., and Ajay K. Kohli (1993), “Market Orientation:
Antecedents and Consequences,” Journal of Marketing, 57 (3),
53–70.
Johnson, Jeff S., Scott B. Friend, and Hannah S. Lee (2017), “Big Data
Facilitation, Utilization, and Monetization: Exploring the 3Vs in a
New Product Development Process,” Journal of Product Innova-
tion Management, 34 (5), 640–658.
Joseph, John and Alex J. Wilson (2018), “The Growth of the Firm: An
Attention-Based View,” Strategic Management Journal, 39 (6),
1779–1800.
Katsikeas, Constantine S., Neil A. Morgan, Leonidas C. Leonidou,
and G. Tomas M. Hult (2016), “Assessing Performance Outcomes
in Marketing,” Journal of Marketing, 80 (2), 1–20.
Katsikeas, Constantine, Saeed Samiee, and Marios Theodosiou
(2006), “Strategy Fit and Performance Consequences of Interna-
tional Marketing Standardization,” Strategic Management Jour-
nal, 27 (9), 867–890.
Kim, Stephen K., Richard G. McFarland, Soongi Kwon, Sanggi Son,
and David A. Griffith (2011), “Understanding Governance Deci-
sions in a Partially Integrated Channel: A Contingent Alignment
Framework,” Journal of Marketing Research, 48 (3), 603–616.
Kohli, Ajay K., and Bernard J. Jaworski B. (1990), “Market Orienta-
tion: The Construct, Research Propositions, and Managerial
Implications,” Journal of Marketing, 54 (2), 1–18.
Kumar, V., Eli Jones, Rajkumar Venkatesan, and Robert P Leone
(2011), “Is Market Orientation a Source of Sustainable Competi-
tive Advantage or Simply the Cost of Competing?” Journal of
Marketing, 75 (1), 16–30.
Kumar, V., and Girish Ramani (2006), “Interaction Orientation: The
New Marketing Competency,” in Does Marketing Need Reform?
Fresh Perspectives on the Future, Jagdish N. Sheth and Rajendra
Sisodia, eds. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe, 109–18.
Kumar, V., Sarang Sunder, and B. Ramaseshan (2011), “Analyzing
the Diffusion of Global Customer Relationship Management: A
Cross-Regional Modeling Framework,” Journal of International
Marketing, 19 (1), 23–39.
Lages, Luis Filipe, Sandy D. Jap, and David A. Griffith (2008), “The
Role of Past Performance in Export Ventures: A Short-Term Reac-
tive Approach,” Journal of International Business Studies, 39 (2),
304–25.
Journal of International Marketing 27(2)
Lam, Son K., Florian Kraus, and Michael Ahearne (2010), “The Dif-
fusion of Market Orientation Throughout the Organization: A
Social Learning Theory Perspective,” Journal of Marketing, 74
(5), 61–79.
Lehmann, Donald R., and Russell S. Winer (2009), “Editorial: Intro-
duction to Special Issue on Marketing and Organic Growth,” Inter-
national Journal of Research in Marketing, 26 (4), 261–262.
Leonidou, Leonidas C., Saeed Samiee, Bilge Aykol, and Michael A.
Talias (2014), “Antecedents and Outcomes of Exporter–Importer
Relationship Quality: Synthesis, Meta-Analysis, and Directions for
Further Research,” Journal of International Marketing, 22 (2),
21–46.
Lindell, Michael K., and David J. Whitney (2001), “Accounting for
Common Method Variance in Cross-Sectional Research Designs,”
Journal of Applied Psychology, 86 (1), 114–21.
Miles, Raymond E., Charles C. Snow, Alan D. Meyer, and Henry J.
Coleman Jr. (1978), “Organizational Strategy, Structure, and
Process,” Academy of Management Review, 3 (3), 546–62.
Moorman, Christine, and Geroge S. Day (2016), “Organizing for
Marketing Excellence,” Journal of Marketing, 80 (6), 6–35.
Morgan, Neil A., Hui Feng, and Kimberly A. Whitler (2018),
“Marketing Capabilities in Interantional Marketing,” Journal of
International Marketing, 26 (1), 61–95.
Morgan, Neil A., Robecca J. Slotegraaf, and Douglas W. Vorhies
(2009), “Linking Marketing Capabilities with Profit Growth,”
International Journal of Research in Marketing, 26 (4), 284–293.
Narver, John C., Robert Jacobson, and Stanley F. Slater (1999),
“Market Orientation and Business Performance: An Analysis of
Panel Data,” in Developing a Market Orientation, Rohit
Deshpande ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, 195–216.
Nemkova, Ekaterina, Anne L. Souchon, Paul Hughes, and Milena
Micevski (2015), “Does Improvisation Help or Hinder Planning
in Determining Export Success? Decision Theory Applied to
Exporting,” Journal of International Marketing, 23 (3), 41–65.
Nunnally, Jum C. (1978), Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-
Hill.
Obadia, Claude (2013), “Competitive Export Pricing: The Influence
of the Information Context,” Journal of International Marketing,
21 (2), 62–78.
Ocasio, William (1997), “Towards an Attention-Based View of the
Firm,” Strategic Management Journal, 18 (1), 187–206.
Özsomer, Ayşegül (2012), “The Interplay Between Global and Local
Brands: A Closer Look at Perceived Brand Globalness and Local
Iconness,” Journal of International Marketing, 20 (2), 72–95.
Park, Chansoo, Chang Hoon Oh, and Azilah Kasim (2017), “Market
Challenges, Learning and Customer Orientation, and Innovative-
ness in IJVs,” International Marketing Review, 34 (6), 945–67.
Podsakoff, Philip M., Scott B. MacKenzie, Jeong-Yeon Lee, and
Nathan P. Podsakoff (2003), “Common Method Biases in Beha-
vioral Research: A Critical Review of the Literature and Recom-
mended Remedies,” Journal of Applied Psychology, 88 (5),
879–903.
Ramani, Girish, and V. Kumar (2008), “Interaction Orienation and
Firm Performance,” Journal of Marketing, 72 (1), 27–45.
Ramaseshan, Balasubramanian, David Bejou, Subhash C. Jain,
Charlotte Mason, and Joseph Pancras (2006), “Issues and
Lee and Griffith
Perspectives in Global Customer Relationship Management,”
Journal of Service Research, 9 (2), 195–207.
Roth, Martin S. (1995), “The Effects of Culture and Socioeconomics
on the Preformance of Global Brand Image Strategies,” Journal of
Marketing Research, 32 (2), 163–75.
Ryans, John K., David A. Griffith, and D. Steven White (2003),
“Standardization/Adaptation of International Marketing Strategy
Necessary Conditions for the Advancement of Knowledge,” Inter-
national Marketing Review, 20 (6), 588–603.
Shi, Linda Hui, and Tao (Tony) Gao (2016), “Performance Effects of
Global Account Coordination Mechanisms: An Integrative Study
of Boundary Conditions,” Journal of International Marketing, 24
(2), 1–21.
Shoham, Aviv (1998), “Export Performance: A Conceputalization and
Empirical Assessment,” Journal of International Marketing, 6 (3),
59–81.
Siemsen, Enno, Aleda Roth, and Pedro Oliveira (2010), “Common
Method Bias in Regression Models with Linear, Quadratic, and
Interaction Effects,” Organizational Research Methods, 13 (3),
456–76.
Simon, Robert A. (1947), Administrative Behavior: A Study of
Decision-Making Processes in Administrative Organization. New
York: Macmillan.
Song, Michael, Robert W. Nason, and C. Anthony Di Benedetto
(2008), “Distinctive Marketing and Information Technology Cap-
abilities and Strategic Types: A Cross-National Investigation,”
Journal of International Marketing, 16 (1), 4–38.
Spyropoulou, Stavroula, Constantine S. Katsikeas, Dionysis
Skarmeas, and Neil A. Morgan (2018), “Strategic Goal Accom-
plishment in Export Ventures: The Role of Capabilities,
37
Knowledge, and Environment,” Journal of the Academy of Mar-
keting Science, 46 (1), 109–29.
Srinivasan, Srini S., Rolph Anderson, and Kishore Ponnavolu (2002),
“Customer Loyalty in E-Commerce: An Exploration of Its Ante-
cedents and Consequences,” Journal of Retailing, 78 (1), 41–50.
Strizhakova, Yuliya, and Robin A. Coulter (2015), “Drivers of Local
Relative to Global Brand Purchases: A Contingency Approach,”
Journal of International Marketing, 23 (1), 1–22.
Tan, Qun, and Carlos M.P. Sousa (2013), “International Marketing
Standardization: A Meta-Analytic Estimation of Its Antecedents
and Consequences,” Management International Review, 53 (5),
711–39.
Theodosiou, Marios, and Evangelia Katsikea (2013), “The Export
Information System: An Empirical Investigation of Its Antecedents
and Performance Outcomes,” Journal of International Marketing,
21 (3), 72–94.
Westjohn, Stanford A., and Peter Magnusson (2017), “Export Perfor-
mance: A Focus on Discretionary Adaptation,” Journal of Inter-
national Marketing, 25 (4), 70–88.
Xu, Shichun, S. Tamer Cavusgil, and J. Chris White (2006), “The
Impact of Strategic Fit among Strategy, Structure, and Processes
on Multinational Corporation Performance: A Multimethod
Assessment,” Journal of International Marketing, 14 (2), 1–31.
Yalcinkaya, Goksel, Roger J. Calantone, and David A. Griffith (2007),
“An Examination of Exploration and Exploitation Capabilities:
Implications for Product Innovation and Market Performance,”
Journal of International Marketing, 15 (4), 63–93.
Zou, Shaoming, and S. Tamer Cavusgil (2002), “The GMS: A Broad
Conceptualization of Global Marketing Strategy and Its Effect on
Firm Performance,” Journal of Marketing, 66 (4), 40–56.
Copyright of Journal of International Marketing is the property of American Marketing
Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,
download, or email articles for individual use.